You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us or post in the registration help forum for unregistered users.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Not Another Book List

Yes, I am afraid, that is just what it is. As I am sure you have noticed, I love Book lists, but they are so fun, aren't they?

I happend upon this one on another site and it struck my interest. One of the things I liked about this list is that it is very eclectic. It really does have something for everyone. It spans acorss the bored.

The list is called 1001 Books to read before you die. Becasue it is quite extensive, I will not attempt to post the list here, but a link where it can be found:

I doubt the compiler has read much of the list. It seems like a list built out of word-of-mouth and book reviews, rather than scholarship or opinion. It also seems to be a very anglocentric list, and typically American, but then again, all English lists seem to be.

The most irritating feature though, is its desire to pack all the popular "literary" novels of our generation onto a list, but only count the English ones, specifically around the major prizes, as the Pulitzer and Booker, yet completely ignores contemporary fiction from, not just the east, but also the vast majority of the west, even if the books are translated. The most represented Nobel laureates on the list undoubtedly are English writers, rather than multicultural ones (though the Nobels are clearly not very multicultural themselves), and the only really included books from non-English writers seem to be cliché ones, such as those by Coelho, or Murakami.

You're better off without a list to be honest; there is no complete list, and there are few very good lists.

I got about 60 books out of that list that I had read - and they tended to be quite good ones. Sure, it is probably biased, has bad choices in it (why do they always include "Catcher in the Rye"?) and too anglocentric, but most of the books that I had read from that list were pretty good and I think that this list will be quite useful for finding books to read. And the lists tend to suck, so by usual standards, I think that this one is quite good - you don't have to take it as The Word of God or anything.
By the way, I don't think that I have seen "The Dictionary of The Khazars" in any other lists - but it is an amazingly good book, wonderfully avant-garde in it's form - a novel written in the form of a dictionary - you open it at some place, there is an article, you read it, you open another random place, read another random article and it is doesn't harm your understanding of the novel at all. It has been called the first novel of 21st century - while it was written in the middle of 20th century.

I doubt the compiler has read much of the list. It seems like a list built out of word-of-mouth and book reviews, rather than scholarship or opinion. It also seems to be a very anglocentric list, and typically American, but then again, all English lists seem to be.

::sighs:: You do realize from the short description of methodology the compiler never claims to have read all the books.

It specifically says:

"These works have been handpicked by a team of international critics and literary luminaries, including Derek Attridge (world expert on James Joyce), Cedric Watts (renowned authority on Joseph Conrad and Graham Greene), Laura Marcus (noted Virginia Woolf expert), and David Mariott (poet and expert on African-American literature), among some twenty others."

So I am trying for the life of me to figure out how you possibly came to the conclusion that the compiler just put this list together through "word-of-mouth" and "book reviews" as opposed to "scholarship" or "opinion."

Now I am not saying I agree or disagree with the contents of this particular list, but it seems to me if you're just going to find books through reviews and word-of-mouth you don't really need to bring together an entire team of literary experts to select the books, now do you?

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

Don't want to read:

Memoirs of a Geisha: A Novel
by Arthur Golden

The Shipping News
by E. Annie Proulx

The English Patient
by Michael Ondaatje

Love in the Time of Cholera
by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

The Cider House Rules
by John Irving

The Color Purple
by Alice Walker

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
by Douglas Adams

In Cold Blood
by Truman Capote

Things Fall Apart: A Novel
by Chinua Achebe

Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day
by Winifred Watson

Gone with the Wind
by Margaret Mitchell

Atonement: A Novel
by Ian McEwan

Little Women (Signet Classics)
by Louisa May Alcott

Herman Melville's Moby Dick
by Herman Melville

Any reason you're not interested in reading those particular novels?

"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus

::sighs:: You do realize from the short description of methodology the compiler never claims to have read all the books.

It specifically says:

"These works have been handpicked by a team of international critics and literary luminaries, including Derek Attridge (world expert on James Joyce), Cedric Watts (renowned authority on Joseph Conrad and Graham Greene), Laura Marcus (noted Virginia Woolf expert), and David Mariott (poet and expert on African-American literature), among some twenty others."

So I am trying for the life of me to figure out how you possibly came to the conclusion that the compiler just put this list together through "word-of-mouth" and "book reviews" as opposed to "scholarship" or "opinion."

Now I am not saying I agree or disagree with the contents of this particular list, but it seems to me if you're just going to find books through reviews and word-of-mouth you don't really need to bring together an entire team of literary experts to select the books, now do you?

Simply because of the way lists are made. What does a Joseph Conrad expert, or a Joyce expert have anything to do with such a list. They are only experts on their particular niche, and cannot possibly be able to create a solid list of "lifetime" worth dedication. You would need to examine the credentials of every single academic on the team, and then assess them all, sorting out which ones have backgrounds in contemporary, classical, or theoretical literature, and which ones have backgrounds in international, and comparative literature, and specifications on literary in translation, in addition to a knowledge of all available translations, and the availability of said translations, in order to begin to comprehend such a list as this. A Conrad expert, or an African American lit specialist has no real authority in assembling a list of 1001 books for a lifetime.

As I said before, I doubt the compiler of the list has actually read it, and instead is trying to push a marketing agenda of some sort. Lists such as these create a fallacy regarding scholarly thought, by over-emphasizing the importance of one critic (who very well may be a mediocre critic), and displaying his views as a general consensus amongst all critics, or many critics. For all you know, half the books on the list could only be recommended by one person, or could be recommended to the recommender of books, and not actually be read by the editorial staff.

Either way, it is 1001 books, and if we remove the classical texts, we are still left with an overabundance of contemporary fiction, which, even if the bulk are great reads, will definitely contain quite a few mediocre period pieces, which, by the time you get to them, will be forgotten, and out of print.

I must agree that this is a rather crappy list purporting to represent the 1001 books you must read before you die. Out of 1000+ books over 700 of the most essential books were written since 1900? Really? Beyond this, as JBI notes, the list is Anglophile in the extreme... with a few obvious exceptions. The worst aspect of this list, to my mind, is that while it is sold to us as the 1001 books we must read before we die, it seems as if only novels need apply. The fact that there is no Dante, Homer, Milton, or Shakespeare is enough to immediately dismiss this list from serious consideration. No poetry... no theater... no essay... no philosophy... no spiritual texts... I find it amazing that this list was compiled by supposed literary "experts". Straight to the circular file with this one.

Beware of the man with just one book. -OvidThe man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark TwainMy Blog: Of Delicious Recoilhttp://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/

Simply because of the way lists are made. What does a Joseph Conrad expert, or a Joyce expert have anything to do with such a list. They are only experts on their particular niche, and cannot possibly be able to create a solid list of "lifetime" worth dedication. You would need to examine the credentials of every single academic on the team, and then assess them all, sorting out which ones have backgrounds in contemporary, classical, or theoretical literature, and which ones have backgrounds in international, and comparative literature, and specifications on literary in translation, in addition to a knowledge of all available translations, and the availability of said translations, in order to begin to comprehend such a list as this. A Conrad expert, or an African American lit specialist has no real authority in assembling a list of 1001 books for a lifetime.

As I said before, I doubt the compiler of the list has actually read it, and instead is trying to push a marketing agenda of some sort. Lists such as these create a fallacy regarding scholarly thought, by over-emphasizing the importance of one critic (who very well may be a mediocre critic), and displaying his views as a general consensus amongst all critics, or many critics. For all you know, half the books on the list could only be recommended by one person, or could be recommended to the recommender of books, and not actually be read by the editorial staff.

Either way, it is 1001 books, and if we remove the classical texts, we are still left with an overabundance of contemporary fiction, which, even if the bulk are great reads, will definitely contain quite a few mediocre period pieces, which, by the time you get to them, will be forgotten, and out of print.

First, because Conrad experts or Woolf experts aren't ONLY experts on a single author. Most people when they have an expertise on a particular author generally are experts in that entire period, region, movement of literature. Usually when they say that all it means is they happened to write a lot about that particular author. The same goes for someone like Bloom who has his expertise in Romanticism; you seem to have no problem quoting his list.

No doubt all lists have biases since everything has a bias. In all honesty, I've never seen a list put forth by a critic or expert yet that I think is all that whacky or out there. First off because half of them have the same titles from list to list anyway, secondly no two lists are the same (you just need to identify what the critera was in forming the list and what the biases might be). In this case, quickly looking at the expertise of the scholars we do get it shouldn't surprise anyone that there is a 20th and 21st century bias.

Certainly no list should be taken as complete in and of itself; however, I really don't see much of a difference between finding titles through some professor's online syllabus (which you recommended doing in the past I believe) or going to the top 100 novels or 1001 books you must read before you die list put forth by a group of Ph. Ds or other selected experts. After all, if some scholars are better than others how exactly is one supposed to tell that whether they are looking at a list or a syllabus online? No doubt the class will reflect the scholar's expertise, so it must be good, except there are plenty of professors who have an expertise in the field that are mediocre at best, which still doesn't solve that problem. Also, expertise in literature can extend beyond your field of speciality; I've talked with enough professors and been over their houses enough during grad school parties to know that most professors are extremely well-read inside and outside their areas of interest. If Bloom can do it I imagine there are plenty of others who can too.

Really it's just a matter of knowing this isn't the end all and be all of lists, but it might be worth checking out a few titles. It's for fun and ideas.

Last edited by Drkshadow03; 08-23-2008 at 08:36 PM.

"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus

The majority of them I do not wish to read because what I have heard about them does not appeal to my personal interest, and list or no list I never would have considered reading them.

It is nothing against the books or a statement of the quality of the books, but rather a personal choice based on what I know of the subject matter of the books.

A few of them on the list are books which were made into the movies, the movies of which I did not care for or was not interested in seeing, and though I know books do not often translate well into movies, if the movie does not interest me it is not going to inspire me to want to read the book.

Memoirs of a Geisha: A Novel is an exception. I actually really enjoyed the movie, but my sister read the book, before the movie came out, and she gave it a very bad review. We share similar taste in books, and tend to like many of the same things, so I trusted her opinion and thought not to waste my time attempting to read the book after what she said.

I'm not a great one for lists but as I joined this Forum to learn what other people enjoy and get some pointers towards new authors that I might enjoy, I say 'Thanks, DM, for some more source material!' I think I am up to date on what constitutes the Classic Books, in Eng Lit, American Lit and some European Lits (available in English translation at any rate) - what I am out of date on is contemporary writing (due to too many years spent with my head down in a line of work where books were very low on a list of priorities - only must-read was The Engineer and very interesting it was too!) so I find it useful to know what I am looking at in libraries and bookshops.

DM - I see Mrs Dalloway is on your 'to read' list - do try this soon - I think from your posts it's a book you will really enjoy. I've just read Atonement - enjoyed it and feel many readers have missed a vital point, so don't dismiss it just yet. And couldn't you spare a week-end for Hitchhiker's Guide? I still find it Laugh Out Loud funny even years after first hearing it on the radio. (Oh, that dates me!)

I myself haven't in the past read much contempary, and many of the contempary works on the list I haven't even heard of, though thanks to sites like this one and others that are simillar I am getting more up to date on contempary and I have one occsaion read af few.

But most of what I read tends to either be Classical, Histrocial Fiction, Fantasy, or Horror.

Though I do love Tom Robbins who is a contempary writer, even if he is shamefully left off of this list. And I am getting into reading Margret Atwood. And there are a few other contmepary works I am getting into reading.

Besides the ones that I have apparently never heard of, here is my list:
Have read:
Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden
The Shining by Stephen King
The Once and Future King by T. H. White
The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Little Prince (I actually read this one in French)
The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells
Bram Stoker's Dracula
The Time Machine by H.G. Wells
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson
The Portrait of a Lady by Henry James
Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne
The Pit and the Pendulum by Edgar Allen Poe
A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens
The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley
Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen
Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift
Tales from the Thousand and One Nights

Am reading:
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
Emma by Jane Austen
Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens
Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens
Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë
Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens
Bleak House by Charles Dickens
Hard Times by Charles Dickens
Great Expectations by Charles Dickens
Little Women by Louisa May Alcott
A Passage to India by E.M. Forster